The Norquist Strategy Part 2: The Trailer

Republican pollster Jon McHenry said that agreeing with the GOP to cut spending will help Obama with independent voters. “He gets to look like an adult who can work with another side,” McHenry said

The sequel to The Deal, The Norquist Strategy: Part 2, opens in February. Here is a trailer for the upcoming attraction:

[C]onservatives interviewed by The Hill took issue with the notion that deep spending cuts will curtail growth. Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said cuts would stimulate the economy because taxpayers will perceive it is less likely that their money will be “stolen” to pay for wasteful spending. [MORE . . .]

“The victory against the omnibus spending bill is so important because it allows Republicans to make a change to spending quicker,” Norquist said. Passage “would have been devastating to morale, and to the voters.”

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute said that the “complete failure of the stimulus package” showed that “deficit spending isn’t good for growth.”

Norquist said the GOP has to do the right thing for the economy, even at the risk that Obama could try to take the credit for a stronger recovery. He said that it would be easy for Republicans to convince voters that their cuts were the cause of the renewed growth.

But how about all those rosy economic projections as a result of the Bush/Obma tax cit "stimulus"?

[E]conomists interviewed by The Hill said they would need to know more about the possible spending cuts to estimate their effects.

[Mark] Zandi said that he was not prepared to estimate the economic effects of deep spending cuts without seeing the details first, but after the middle of 2011, he said, recovery should be strong enough to withstand reduced federal purchasing power. [. . .] If Republicans go after grants to state and local governments, however, that could cause some economic damage, Zandi said. State aid from the 2009 stimulus act is set to dry up by July, so any further cuts could cause massive and sudden downsizing at the state level, he argued.

Gee, you think? But here is my favorite:

Maya MacGuineas of the New America Foundation, who has been working with a bipartisan group of senators on deficit-cutting legislation to be introduced next year, said that while cuts in 2011 are not ideal, there is enough waste in the budget to include them without hurting the recovery.

Hmm, somehow "wasteful" spending does not add to aggregate demand for some reason according to MacGuineas.

We are ruled by idiots.

Speaking for me only

< Confusing Methods With Objectives | Cheering For The Home Team >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Up is Down, Black is White: (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    we all live in Upside-Down, Backwards World now...

    Now that the Norquistians seem to have a fan in Obama, now that he can see that Norquistian theory strengthens the oligarchy, I'm guessing it will take off like a house on fire.

    Too bad it will be our house that burns to the ground - but, not to worry: the stone walls of the castle will prove impervious to the conflagration out among the masses.

    When you smell smoke, make sure your escape plan includes saving your pom-poms - you will be expected to use them later - especially if you want any bones to be thrown your way over the castle walls.

    teh feudalism - it burns (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    The most wasteful (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    government spending of all is on the military, especially its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. I bet Ms MacGuineas wouldn't dare suggest cutting such spending, however.

    The are corrupt, self- (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    serving idiots.

    'They' (none / 0) (#7)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    Stupid keyboard.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cal1942 on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 11:33:40 PM EST
    We are ruled by idiots.

    Wasteful is in the eyes of the beholder but cuts in total spending while leaving military spending intact is without question a blow to the economy.

    I've heard too many remarkably stupid statements from economists in the last (many) years.  Enough stupidity to make me lose respect for the "profession" itself.  It's supposed to be a social science but it sounds like the current crop of practitioners simply pick stuff out of their a$$es.

    The statements make me suspicious that a number in the "profession" have been bought off.

    Of course cutting military spending (none / 0) (#11)
    by Raskolnikov on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 12:41:56 AM EST
    would also not contribute positively to the economy unless the money was redirected directly to a jobs program back home.  Cutting back our global reach would curtail the number of soldiers, transport vehicles and supplies required which would result in lost jobs, both directly with decreased recruiting efforts and less retention or more indirectly with fewer contractors supplying the engineering and manufacturing services for the military.

    That said, I do think its obvious we need to tone down our worldwide military policing efforts before we bleed our country dry and cause our own ruin, but I was just pointing out that decreasing military spending would have a negative impact on a lot of people and the economy at large.


    Saddest thing evah (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:02:36 AM EST
    The only jobs programs we have are two wars, but thems the facts

    Regarding military spending (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    We have over 800 military installations outside the US.  Much of the money that flows there ends up in foreign economies not ours.  May as well flush more national wealth down the toilet.

    We also have two very costly wars that are harming us more than just financially.

    I could go on here but the truth is that, procurement aside, a great deal of military money leaves the nation's economy.

    Bringing troops home from overseas would, at least, insure the funds to support those troops are spent here.

    Even procurement funds can be directed elsewhere in the economy to produce assets of lasting value.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:06:52 AM EST
    When aggregate demand is in the toilet and not looking to make a break out anytime within two or three or fours or more years and unemployment is really something like 12% when you stop fudging the numbers, I really need someone to define "wasteful spending" for me.  Define it so that we can actually talk about it, or the freakonomists can kiss my.........

    And if we are ruled by idiots... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    ...what does that say about US?  Ask Rahm, I guess.

    And THESE are the siphons of reason and creativity whom Obama cannot oppose with passion and purpose, but must cave to again and again.

    But I guess they're so far right that if Obama does his Reagan act then he'll be the lefty.

    I get it now!  Eureka!  We're phucked!

    i'm not sure it says anything much about us (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 09:48:40 PM EST
    And if we are ruled by idiots . . . what does that say about US?

    as the Supremes said 10 years ago, our votes don't count

    that seems to be true regardless of whether elections are stolen (Bush v. Gore) or electoral mandates are simply ignored (Obama)


    They may be idiots . . . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    but at least one of them gets to look like an adult . . .